Should Facebook be regulated with laws instead of fines?
The fine Facebook just paid was huge, but many in tech say it wasn't nearly enough to protect your data.
- Last week, Facebook incurred a five billion dollar fine as a result of its mismanagement of user data.
- This is the second largest fine the FTC has ever given out.
- Many in tech are arguing that this was a mere slap on the wrist and that stronger regulation is needed.
You might have heard about Facebook's 5-billion-dollar fine last week. It was levied by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for Facebook's mismanagement of data during the Cambridge Analytica scandal and failure to follow their own privacy policies.
The fine is the second-largest ever dished out by the FTC and comes along with a series of restrictions on how Facebook will do business. These penalties were worked out as a settlement that kept the issue from going to court.
However, while this might seem to be a significant win for those who want more regulation and oversight of tech companies, many are arguing this is nothing of the sort.
Why some think a ten-figure fine was a slap on the wrist
While the fines and regulations the FTC decreed might seem stiff, they are weaker than they appear to be. First of all, Facebook made a ton of money this quarter — $5B is chump change. The restrictions on how Facebook does business also aren't quite as thorough as you'd imagine.
While they will introduce a new third-party commission to oversee new privacy decisions, this won't cause any fundamental change in how they go about collecting personal data and selling it to advertisers. Many in the tech world are criticizing the settlement; saying this was anything from a slap on the wrist to a payoff to prevent further investigation.
Tony Romm at the Washington Post showed how Facebook dictated the terms of the settlement and made an offer to pay the 10-figure fine in part to win other concessions from the FTC. Professor Siva Vaidhyanathan of the University of Virginia argued that the settlement, which includes forgiveness for any misconduct Facebook executives were part of, was a useless gesture that won't cause any progress on privacy issues.
Alex Stamos, formerly of Facebook, went further. Pointing to clauses in the deal that allow the company to cut off relationships with third-party apps, he argued they might benefit the company in the long run, saying "Facebook paid the FTC $5B for a letter that says, 'You never again have to create mechanisms that could facilitate competition.'"
The FTC decision wasn't unanimous either. Two commissioners, the ones appointed by Democratic presidents, dissented. In her dissent, Rebecca Slaughter argued that the fine was too small to deter future mismanagement of data and privacy rights and that investigations of Facebook's top staff should have been undertaken.
Fellow commissioner Rohit Chopra largely agreed, saying:
"The proposed settlement does little to change the business model or practices. . . [and] imposes no meaningful changes to the company's structure or financial incentives."
If all these experts agree that the punishment was too light, why wasn't it larger?
While Facebook might have ostensibly done some illegal things, the laws around these issues are pretty weak. The fact that the FTC backed down when Facebook suggested they were willing to go to court demonstrates this. The laws covering this topic are limited and somewhat ambiguous. Most of the FTC's power in this area comes from the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which doesn't even cover adults' information.
At the end of the day, the FTC can only act in ways prescribed by law. If they try to go too far beyond existing legislation in their rulings, the courts can strike them down. Perhaps this is why columnist Matt Levine makes an excellent argument for new laws to remove these ambiguities and clarify the law around online privacy in Bloomberg:
"But the more important thing that is going on here is that some people — at the FTC and elsewhere — thought that the FTC should mandate big structural changes in how Facebook works, "the way they collect data in the first place," and Facebook did not. This is not a legal or factual dispute; it's a policy dispute, and it has nothing to do with the questions of what Facebook did wrong or how responsible Zuckerberg was. Even if Facebook has an airtight case that everything it did with the Cambridge Analytica data was totally allowed under existing law and regulation and consent decrees, the FTC — and "privacy watchdogs," and Congress, and you — might nonetheless want to require changes in how Facebook collects data.
The United States actually, as a country, has a mechanism to do that. It is called 'passing a law.' Some members of Congress, the body charged with writing legislation, could write a bill saying 'social media companies can't collect data in the following bad ways,' or whatever, and then the other members of Congress could debate it, and when they (and the president) agreed it would be passed and become law, and then there would be new restrictions on the way that Facebook collects data. And if Facebook violated them it would pay even bigger fines, or it would be shut down, or its executives would go to jail, or whatever the law said."
While he leaves the exact nature of this new law up to the imagination, it is clear he envisions something rather strict.
We are in a brave new world of tech, regulation, and government oversight. Many of the laws and systems we have for controlling the new systems we use to interact with one another are outdated. This ruling, while not unsubstantial, demonstrates this. If we will find the political will to correct for these issues before the next privacy scandal breaks is anybody's guess.
- The FTC's Facebook investigation, explained - Vox ›
- Facebook confirms new FTC antitrust investigation after posting ... ›
- The FTC Is Powerless to Regulate Facebook Right Now. Ask Chuck ... ›
- F.T.C. Approves Facebook Fine of About $5 Billion - The New York ... ›
- The agency in charge of policing Facebook and Google is 103 years ... ›
- Regulators Around the World Are Circling Facebook - The New York ... ›
Join Radiolab's Latif Nasser at 1pm ET on Monday as he chats with Malcolm Gladwell live on Big Think.
Astronomers find these five chapters to be a handy way of conceiving the universe's incredibly long lifespan.
- We're in the middle, or thereabouts, of the universe's Stelliferous era.
- If you think there's a lot going on out there now, the first era's drama makes things these days look pretty calm.
- Scientists attempt to understand the past and present by bringing together the last couple of centuries' major schools of thought.
The 5 eras of the universe<p>There are many ways to consider and discuss the past, present, and future of the universe, but one in particular has caught the fancy of many astronomers. First published in 1999 in their book <a href="https://amzn.to/2wFQLiL" target="_blank"><em>The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity</em></a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Adams" target="_blank">Fred Adams</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_P._Laughlin" target="_blank">Gregory Laughlin</a> divided the universe's life story into five eras:</p><ul><li>Primordial era</li><li>Stellferous era</li><li>Degenerate era</li><li>Black Hole Era</li><li>Dark era</li></ul><p>The book was last updated according to current scientific understandings in 2013.</p><p>It's worth noting that not everyone is a subscriber to the book's structure. Popular astrophysics writer <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansiegel/#30921c93683e" target="_blank">Ethan C. Siegel</a>, for example, published an article on <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/26/we-have-already-entered-the-sixth-and-final-era-of-our-universe/#7072d52d4e5d" target="_blank"><em>Medium</em></a> last June called "We Have Already Entered The Sixth And Final Era Of Our Universe." Nonetheless, many astronomers find the quintet a useful way of discuss such an extraordinarily vast amount of time.</p>
The Primordial era<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjkwMTEyMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNjEzMjY1OX0.PRpvAoa99qwsDNprDme9tBWDim6mS7Mjx6IwF60fSN8/img.jpg?width=980" id="db4eb" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0e568b0cc12ed624bb8d7e5ff45882bd" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Image source: Sagittarius Production/Shutterstock<p> This is where the universe begins, though what came before it and where it came from are certainly still up for discussion. It begins at the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago. </p><p> For the first little, and we mean <em>very</em> little, bit of time, spacetime and the laws of physics are thought not yet to have existed. That weird, unknowable interval is the <a href="https://www.universeadventure.org/eras/era1-plankepoch.htm" target="_blank">Planck Epoch</a> that lasted for 10<sup>-44</sup> seconds, or 10 million of a trillion of a trillion of a trillionth of a second. Much of what we currently believe about the Planck Epoch eras is theoretical, based largely on a hybrid of general-relativity and quantum theories called quantum gravity. And it's all subject to revision. </p><p> That having been said, within a second after the Big Bang finished Big Banging, inflation began, a sudden ballooning of the universe into 100 trillion trillion times its original size. </p><p> Within minutes, the plasma began cooling, and subatomic particles began to form and stick together. In the 20 minutes after the Big Bang, atoms started forming in the super-hot, fusion-fired universe. Cooling proceeded apace, leaving us with a universe containing mostly 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, similar to that we see in the Sun today. Electrons gobbled up photons, leaving the universe opaque. </p><p> About 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe had cooled enough that the first stable atoms capable of surviving began forming. With electrons thus occupied in atoms, photons were released as the background glow that astronomers detect today as cosmic background radiation. </p><p> Inflation is believed to have happened due to the remarkable overall consistency astronomers measure in cosmic background radiation. Astronomer <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGCVTSQw7WU" target="_blank">Phil Plait</a> suggests that inflation was like pulling on a bedsheet, suddenly pulling the universe's energy smooth. The smaller irregularities that survived eventually enlarged, pooling in denser areas of energy that served as seeds for star formation—their gravity pulled in dark matter and matter that eventually coalesced into the first stars. </p>
The Stelliferous era<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjkwMTEzNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMjA0OTcwMn0.GVCCFbBSsPdA1kciHivFfWlegOfKfXUfEtFKEF3otQg/img.jpg?width=980" id="bc650" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c8f86bf160ecdea6b330f818447393cd" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Image source: Casey Horner/unsplash<p>The era we know, the age of stars, in which most matter existing in the universe takes the form of stars and galaxies during this active period. </p><p>A star is formed when a gas pocket becomes denser and denser until it, and matter nearby, collapse in on itself, producing enough heat to trigger nuclear fusion in its core, the source of most of the universe's energy now. The first stars were immense, eventually exploding as supernovas, forming many more, smaller stars. These coalesced, thanks to gravity, into galaxies.</p><p>One axiom of the Stelliferous era is that the bigger the star, the more quickly it burns through its energy, and then dies, typically in just a couple of million years. Smaller stars that consume energy more slowly stay active longer. In any event, stars — and galaxies — are coming and going all the time in this era, burning out and colliding.</p><p>Scientists predict that our Milky Way galaxy, for example, will crash into and combine with the neighboring Andromeda galaxy in about 4 billion years to form a new one astronomers are calling the Milkomeda galaxy.</p><p>Our solar system may actually survive that merger, amazingly, but don't get too complacent. About a billion years later, the Sun will start running out of hydrogen and begin enlarging into its red giant phase, eventually subsuming Earth and its companions, before shrining down to a white dwarf star.</p>
The Degenerate era<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjkwMTE1MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNTk3NDQyN30.gy4__ALBQrdbdm-byW5gQoaGNvFTuxP5KLYxEMBImNc/img.jpg?width=980" id="77f72" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="08bb56ea9fde2cee02d63ed472d79ca3" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Image source: Diego Barucco/Shutterstock/Big Think<p>Next up is the Degenerate era, which will begin about 1 quintillion years after the Big Bang, and last until 1 duodecillion after it. This is the period during which the remains of stars we see today will dominate the universe. Were we to look up — we'll assuredly be outta here long before then — we'd see a much darker sky with just a handful of dim pinpoints of light remaining: <a href="https://earthsky.org/space/evaporating-giant-exoplanet-white-dwarf-star" target="_blank">white dwarfs</a>, <a href="https://earthsky.org/space/new-observations-where-stars-end-and-brown-dwarfs-begin" target="_blank">brown dwarfs</a>, and <a href="https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/definition-what-is-a-neutron-star" target="_blank">neutron stars</a>. These"degenerate stars" are much cooler and less light-emitting than what we see up there now. Occasionally, star corpses will pair off into orbital death spirals that result in a brief flash of energy as they collide, and their combined mass may become low-wattage stars that will last for a little while in cosmic-timescale terms. But mostly the skies will be be bereft of light in the visible spectrum.</p><p>During this era, small brown dwarfs will wind up holding most of the available hydrogen, and black holes will grow and grow and grow, fed on stellar remains. With so little hydrogen around for the formation of new stars, the universe will grow duller and duller, colder and colder.</p><p>And then the protons, having been around since the beginning of the universe will start dying off, dissolving matter, leaving behind a universe of subatomic particles, unclaimed radiation…and black holes.</p>
The Black Hole era<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjkwMTE2MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMjE0OTQ2MX0.ifwOQJgU0uItiSRg9z8IxFD9jmfXlfrw6Jc1y-22FuQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="103ea" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f0e6a71dacf95ee780dd7a1eadde288d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Image source: Vadim Sadovski/Shutterstock/Big Think<p> For a considerable length of time, black holes will dominate the universe, pulling in what mass and energy still remain. </p><p> Eventually, though, black holes evaporate, albeit super-slowly, leaking small bits of their contents as they do. Plait estimates that a small black hole 50 times the mass of the sun would take about 10<sup>68</sup> years to dissipate. A massive one? A 1 followed by 92 zeros. </p><p> When a black hole finally drips to its last drop, a small pop of light occurs letting out some of the only remaining energy in the universe. At that point, at 10<sup>92</sup>, the universe will be pretty much history, containing only low-energy, very weak subatomic particles and photons. </p>
The Dark Era<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjkwMTE5NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0Mzg5OTEyMH0.AwiPRGJlGIcQjjSoRLi6V3g5klRYtxQJIpHFgZdZkuo/img.jpg?width=980" id="60c77" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7a857fb7f0d85cf4a248dbb3350a6e1c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Image source: Big Think<p>We can sum this up pretty easily. Lights out. Forever.</p>
Innovators don't ignore risk; they are just better able to analyze it in uncertain situations.
Remarkable 'fan art' commemorates 50th anniversary of legendary guitar player's passing.
- Legendary rock guitarist Jimi Hendrix died exactly 50 years ago today.
- From September 1966 to his death, he performed over 450 times.
- This spectacular 'gigograph' shows the geographic dimension of his short but busy career.
Last night at the Samarkand<video controls id="3f8a7" width="100%" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5cd31bc25fbed5fd4fbc5905d44527e8" expand="1" feedbacks="true" mime_type="video/mp4" shortcode_id="1600450310811" url="https://roar-assets-auto.rbl.ms/runner%2F19636-JimiHendrix_LivePerformances.mp4" videoControls="true"> <source src="https://roar-assets-auto.rbl.ms/runner%2F19636-JimiHendrix_LivePerformances.mp4" type="video/mp4"> Your browser does not support the video tag. </video><p>On September 17, 1970, Jimi Hendrix awoke at the Samarkand Hotel in Notting Hill, London, in the basement flat where his German girlfriend Monika Dannemann was staying. At around 2 p.m., they had tea in the hotel's garden and Monika took some snaps of Jimi with 'Black Beauty,' his favorite Fender Stratocaster guitar. Those were the last pictures ever taken of him. </p><p><span></span>Later in the afternoon, the couple went out – visiting local hipness hotspot <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Market,_London" target="_blank">Kensington Market</a>, an antiques market in Chelsea and Jimi's suite at the Cumberland Hotel, near Marble Arch. They had tea and wine at a friend's flat, argued and made up, and went back to the Samarkand Hotel, where they had a late meal, drank a bottle of wine and Jimi wrote a poem titled 'The Story of Life.'</p><p>Well after midnight, Hendrix went to a party, where he took some amphetamine. Dannemann showed up at the party, and around 3 a.m. the couple returned to the Samarkand. Unable to sleep, Jimi took nine of Monika's sleeping pills (the recommended dose was half a pill). When she awoke that morning, she found him unresponsive and covered in vomit. Around noon of the 18th of September – exactly 50 years ago today – Jimi Hendrix was pronounced dead.</p><p>The last stanza of the poem he wrote the night before reads:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>The story of life is quicker than the wink of an eye.</em></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>The story of love is hello and goodbye.</em></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>Until we meet again.</em></p><p>Amid the initial confusion surrounding his death, the poem was mistaken by some for a suicide note. Several subsequent investigations have provided nothing but indications of an accidental death. <br></p>
Immortalised in the '27 Club'<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyNDQ3NC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMDU1NjcxNX0.27c7ESrA2OnXExGCsigfs5jOVoAAAR-M9pn3sIFRZdA/img.png?width=980" id="b5894" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6979d0862296c37bddbf9ea081cd3171" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="\u200bJimi Hendrix performing for the Dutch TV show 'Hoepla' on 11 June 1967." />
Jimi Hendrix performing for the Dutch TV show 'Hoepla' on 11 June 1967.
Credit: A. Vente, CC BY-SA 3.0<p>Arguably the<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJunCsrhJjg&ab_cha..." target="_blank"> greatest guitarist in rock history</a>, Hendrix was one of the first modern members of the '27 Club' – musicians immortalised mid-fame, dead at the still-tender age of 27. Earlier members include Robert Johnson (d. 1938) and Brian Jones (d. 1969), later ones Janis Joplin (who died two weeks after Hendrix), Jim Morrison (d. 1971), Kurt Cobain (d. 1994) and Amy Winehouse (d. 2011).</p><p>In the States, Hendrix had made a name for himself as a band guitarist, playing for both Little Richard and Ike Turner. Not an undividedly positive name: he got fired from both of those bands. His own career – as a solo artist, and as the leader of the Jimi Hendrix Experience – only took off when he moved to London. <br></p><p>The graph above connects over 450 dots, one for each gig he played. It shows the amount of hard work Hendrix put into his career, and how it paid off – after criss-crossing Northwestern Europe, but mainly England, his fame hops back across the Atlantic and becomes transcontinental. A few samples from his <a href="https://concerts.fandom.com/wiki/Jimi_Hendrix" target="_blank">gig database</a>:</p>
London first, London last<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyNDQ4My9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMDQ4MTg5Nn0.ST2r7qyiI9CELqKP0-CpoV7YIWioAEQBXscq9mJVESM/img.jpg?width=980" id="86886" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0d79abc719416b4068456e6938fcd776" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="The Jimi Hendrix Experience in 1968, with Jimi, bass player Noel Redding (right) and drummer Mitch Mitchell (on the floor)." />
The Jimi Hendrix Experience in 1968, with Jimi, bass player Noel Redding (right) and drummer Mitch Mitchell (on the floor).
Credit: public domain<ul><li>24 September 1966: first solo performance in London, at Scotch of St James.</li><li>13 October 1966: first concert of the Jimi Hendrix Experience, supporting Johnny Halliday in Évreux, France.</li><li>18 January 1967: performing 'Hey Joe' on 'Top of the Pops', at the BBC TV's Lime Grove Studios in London.</li><li>18 June 1967: first stateside gig, at the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe82eYRjiBU&ab_cha..." target="_blank">Monterey International Pop Festival</a> in California.</li><li>3 July 1967: first East Coast show, at the Scene Club in NYC.</li><li>9 October 1967: L'Olympia, Paris.</li><li>14 November 1967: at the Royal Albert Hall in London; first gig of package tour with Pink Floyd, The Nice and others.</li><li>31 December 1967: at the Speakeasy in London. Jimi plays a 30-minute rendition of <em>Auld Lang Syne</em>.</li><li>12 March 1968: jam session with Jim Morrison, Buddy Miles and others at The Scene in NYC.</li><li>22 June 1968: at The Scene in NYC, Jimi jams with the original lineup of the Jeff Beck Group, which also includes Rod Stewart and Ron Wood.</li><li>14 September 1968: Hollywood Bowl, Los Angeles.</li><li>23 January 1969: two shows at the <em>Sportpalast</em> in Berlin, Germany.</li><li>18 May 1969: Madison Square Garden, NYC.</li><li>29 June 1969: Mile High Stadium, Denver – the last performance of the Jimi Hendrix Experience.</li><li>17 August 1969: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwIymq0iTsw&t=14s&..." target="_blank">Woodstock</a>, New York.</li><li>30 August 1970: Isle of Wight Festival, England.</li><li>16 September 1970: jam with Eric Burdon's new band War at Ronnie Scott's in Soho, London. Jimi's last public performance.</li></ul><p>This bit of 'fan art' was created by Owen Powell, who points out that "it's not an academic study of Jimi Hendrix's movements, more a visualisation of the data mapped in sequential order." So if he flew home between gigs, that's not recorded here. <br></p><p><em>The Jimi Hendrix 'gigograph' reproduced with kind permission from Mr Powell. Check out his <a href="https://twitter.com/owenjpowell" target="_blank">twitter</a> and his <a href="https://owenpowell.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">website</a>.</em></p><p><strong>Strange Maps #1048</strong></p><p><strong></strong><em>Got a strange map? Let me know at </em><a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org" style="">email@example.com</a>.<br></p>
Welcome to the world's newest motorsport: manned multicopter races that exceed speeds of 100 mph.